WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?

Since the weather has been so beautiful here in Southern California, I decided to “work from home” today!  That’s the beauty of my job…I can do that from time to time.  Needing a break from the number crunching, I decided to grab my camera and head up the freeway to the Fullerton Arboretum (Thanks for the tip, Tim).  It didn’t take long to settle on this landscape scene.  The trick was waiting for the people to clear.  Funny –  just as I began to set up my tripod, here comes a class of about 20 elementary students to feed the ducks!  It was rather entertaining to watch them throw the bread to the ducks, then run screaming as the ducks came after more!  Not to make light of traumatized children – there really was no danger!

The Fullerton Arboretum - Fullerton, California/Canon 50D 1/25. f/11, 17mm, ISO 100

I guess there really should be a subject in this shot, but nothing or no one would cooperate.  I wondered if children being chased by ducks was an appropriate subject – but, they were moving too fast!  🙂

There is something very different about this shot, but you’ll have to be a very astute follower and pay very close attention to details in order to recognize what it is.  You may even find it necessary to look around the site to discover the subtle difference in this shot compared to my other shots.  But, you’re welcome to give a guess, if you like!

Advertisements

~ by photographyfree4all on March 10, 2011.

27 Responses to “WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?”

  1. Hmmmm…. maybe it’s just me, but I don’t remember seeing your name on your photos before. New watermark? Other than that, I wouldn’t really have any idea!

    Like

  2. Holly! You’re right on about the signature watermark. Since I’m starting to print and frame some of my shots, I decided to just put a signature on everything. BUT…that’s not what I was referring to. So, it’s still out there everyone! Give it a guess! Thanks for getting the first change correct, Holly! Great job! 🙂

    Like

  3. Why does it look like a postcard? There’s a white line around everything? That’s my guess! 🙂

    Like

  4. Man, you guys are really paying attention!! The white frame is new – I thought it was a nice effect to set the print off from the dark background! Great pick up, Car54! BUT…that’s not what I’m referring to either. Even though both the signature and the frame are new…this difference is the newest change! So…keep your comments coming everyone!! Thanks, Car54…it was a great try! 🙂

    Like

  5. I’d guess that you used a polarizing filter of some sort or possibly a graduated neutral density filter to get the sky so blue. You also added the EXIF data below the image.

    Like

  6. I have no guess. But it’s a beautiful photo anyway. 🙂

    Like

  7. Hmm… I never picked up on the signature OR the frame–the only thing that stands out to me is that it’s all in green. And, I don’t think you’ve posted this kind of nature scene before–at a pond… deciduous trees… no mountains… no oceans… am I close?

    Like

  8. Now, that’s what I love to see, KKH!! Someone who will just come in and say what they have to say!! Great comment!! Keep ’em coming!! 🙂

    Like

  9. I did use a circular polarizing filter – I rarely shoot without it when I’m outside! It does so much with all of the colors! I’m a real believer, Tracy!! BUT…it’s not the filter, either. However, you are getting a bit warmer by mentioning the EXIF data. I don’t usually provide that information, although I always find it to be interesting when viewing other people’s photography. HINT: There is a definite clue in that information! And Tracy…your food photography always makes me hungry! Great job!

    Like

  10. Well, you’re right about this type of print being a rarity with me. I guess I need to broaden my horizons a bit! 🙂 BUT…that’s not what I’m referring to either. Thanks for jumping in, Heather! Feel free to add another comment if you get another idea. Thanks!

    Like

  11. OK, here’s a HINT!!!! The difference is not in the blog format. In other words, it’s not a technical change with the blog. Think carefully about the EXIF data!! The answer lies within that information. Don’t give up! It’s adding a little interest to the whole blog post today! HAHA!! 🙂

    Like

  12. You got a new camera!! 🙂

    Like

  13. HOLLY!!!! You are soooooo close!!!! 🙂

    Like

  14. I’m sorry–I don’t even know what ‘exif’ is–I’ll go google it…

    Like

  15. I must admit, I had to look it up too Heather! :). It’s the image data that’s embedded in the file format. It actually stands for Exchangeable image file or format…now, I’m going to have to look it up again! 🙂 I’m always interested to know how an image was captured – so, that information always interests me! I learn from it. Thanks for helping us all learn, Heather! It’s great! 🙂

    Like

  16. Okay then – I’m going to try again. In going through your past posts it seems you shoot with a 28-135mm lens. Your info now says this was shot at 17 mm – am I getting closer?

    Like

  17. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!! You’re spot on, Car54!! I purposely included the information detailing the focal length because if you look at my equipment posts, you’ll see that up until 3 days ago I didn’t have a lens that was wide enough to capture at 17mm. Look for an upcoming pic and details of the new addition in a future post! There’s quite a story behind the addition!! Great job, Car54!!

    Like

  18. I feel badly, Heather! I should have explained what those letters represented! My bad!!!

    Like

  19. I love your photos. I mostly take my own – are yours for sharing? Can I put them on my blog? if not, can you give me some CLEAR guide lines about how I can tell when a photo is lying around for anyone to share. It is such a minefield of conflicting information.

    The consensus seems to be that ‘if it can be download’ then it’s ok. The onus is on the owner to say that you can’t. There was a law past recently, I think? Can you help me so I can stop worrying? I often see lovely photos I want to use (not for any financial gain).

    Like

  20. Hi Jenny. I’m so glad you found your way over to Photographyfree4all. I hope my blog name has not caused confusion. The “free4all” portion of my blog name refers to a term I often use to describe an event that has no boundaries. In this case, it refers to the photography discussions often found here…anyone and everyone is encouraged to join!

    At any rate, it’s always been my understanding that every photograph taken is by default the property of the person who captured it. It has been explained to me that even if the photograph carries no watermark, it still belongs to the photographer and would require permission to use it. Having said that, not very many people adhere to that policy/law. I’m pretty new to this, so I may still be a bit naive. I think I would like to open this up to my readers and see what they say. So, follow my posts next week and I’ll get the discussion going.

    In the meantime, I would have no problem with you using one of my images, as long as you credit me as the photographer. I think I would prefer that you contact me and let me know each time you use one, though. And if you use one, it would be awesome if you also made a reference to my blog as well.

    Like

  21. Okay–I guess ‘exif’ would be the properties that pop up when you right click the photo. And now I have a question:

    I notice that some properties and information about the photo and camera also pop up on the bottom of my windows viewer when I select a picture. Since I’ve been thinking about it more, I checked out the information I had for some old photos I’d taken a while back with the camera my brother-in-law loaned me before I was able to get mine.

    All of them show up with ‘Canon Power Shot’ as being the camera–but it wasn’t even a Canon camera–It was Fuji or something different like that, I’m certain. And definitely not a point and click camera–I know he invested a lot of money into it. So, I’m wondering now about the reliability of this information; whether I’m misunderstanding something–or if I’m just not reading it correctly.

    Like

  22. Hmmm…I’m not sure about right clicking, since I primarily use a MAC for my photography and right clicking isn’t a usuable function on their mouse. On my MAC, I have a file that is marked Extended Photo Data (I think). When I click that file, it opens the data for the photo I’ve opened. That’s how I retrieve my data. It’s funny because before I knew that file existed, I carried a little notebook with me and manually recorded my camera settings so I would have them. Talk about work! 🙂

    Mine has always recorded the information accurately – even if I use my back up camera, which happens to be a Nikon. Sorry, I can’t be of more help with the problem you’re having. 😦

    Like

  23. I have a 17-40mm lens. Love it! You’ll have a good time with your new addition.

    Like

  24. Oh my!!! I am already loving it, KKH!! 🙂 I never thought I would have one at this stage of my photography!!

    Like

  25. […] to Car54 for reasearching my camera equipment and recognizing in this post that I must have acquired a new lens if the image was captured at 17mm.  YAY!!  You […]

    Like

  26. Nice shot Steve, congrats on the new lens, I think experimenting with landscapes is a good way to work out that wider view 🙂

    Like

  27. I’m loving it so far, Michael!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: